This is a simple examination designed to test your understanding of the deletion process, specifically the use of speedy deletion tags. Thanks to Worm That Turned for constructing some of the pages linked to.
Below are a number of articles which may meet one or more of the speedy deletion criteria. For each example, say whether the article is an appropriate candidiate for speedy deletion, and which criterion it should be deleted under (some may be eligible under more than one). If you don't think it should be speedily deleted, say what you would do instead (if anything).
Assume unless otherwise stated that all of these are found in article space.
1.
Danille Stross
A. This article should be speedy deleted (Reason: A7)
Yes, that's fine - most admins, myself included, would also have accepted G3 (vandalism or hoax) as a reason as well.
2.
Waichi
A. This one was a hard one! If it can't be moved to a differently-languaged Wikipedia, I would translate it to English rather than delete it.
Good answer. This is a particularly difficult one, since the article is actually a word-for-word Finnish translation of the existing page
Sugiyama Waichi. It could therefore in theory be tagged with A10 (article already exists) - technically it doesn't qualify for G12 (copyright violation) becuase I wrote both pages myself, but I would also have accepted that as an answer. However, your approach - see if it can be moved, or translate, rather than blindly deleting - is a good one. You may not know this, but if you do come across pages in foreign languages you can list them at
Pages needing translation.
3.
Zack de Vries
A. Lots of grammatical and spelling errors here! I would take the time to correct the errors than delete the article, though.
I like the fact that even though this is a test of your understanding of deletion, you aren't automatically rushing to find a reason to delete. Fixing the problems with a page is often a much better idea than trying to get rid of it altogether. In this instance, the main problem is that it's an article about a living person with no sources - such articles should be tagged with {{
BLPPROD}}, becuase all pages on living people must have at least one reference. However, assuming that you found some sources in the course of improving the article, deletion might not be necessary.
4.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barry Ross
This example should be treated as an AfC submission
A. This AfC should be deleted. It has an invalid source, the person is not significant and the section "Life story" pokes fun at Barry Ross considering the length of the section.
As a rule, AfCs are not speedily deleted unless they are either clear copyright violations (G12) or blatant attack pages (G10). I didn't write this page to poke fun at the fictitious Mr Ross, but I accept that it could be read that way, and so you might be able to make a case for G10. Insignificance is covered under A7, and "A" tags apply only to articles (which, since AFC is hosted in Wikipedia talkspace, this page is not).
5.
Alfreld Herchkerck
A. Speedy deletion (reason: A10). Unneccesary page.
Close - it is an unnecessary page, but it's specifically an unnecessary
redirect. Redirect pages have their own deletion rules; in this case R3 (implausible typo) would be appropriate.
6.
Blgah
A. Ugh! Speedy deletion (reason: G1)
Yes, blatant gibberish.
7.
Portland Square Bombing
A. I would delete this page by proposing it's deletion. Because of it's numerous grammatical and spelling errors, along with it's obviously terrible credibility AND along with it's child's storylike text.
PROD (as opposed to speedy deletion) is more appropriate here if you wish to request deletion, but none of the reasons you've cited is actually a reason for deleting a page. Spelling, grammar and tone can all be fixed by regular editing. You would probably find the PROD was contested; a better approach would have been to either try and improve tha article or to just leave it alone.
8.
User:Chest McFlink
This example should be treated as a userpage
A. I think this should be kept, but rewritten in a first-person POV, as it is his Userpage!
Yes, that's a prefectly acceptable solution.
9.
Tsutomu Yukawa
A. I would expand the article. But honestly, at first I thought there was nothing wrong with the page at all.
Glad you think so (it's a copy of a real page that I created,
Tsutomu Yukawa!). I'd also have given you a point if you'd said "take it to
Articles for deletion", since the sourcing is quite weak.
10.
Johnny Awesome
A. I would speedy delete the article for A7 and G11. The article was also written from one person't POV.
It certainly needs to go - however, I would have preferred to see this tagged with G10 (attack page), and blanked. The use of the term "ponce", plus the suggestion of sexual intercourse with hermaphrodites clearly pushes this into attack page territory. G11 definitely isn't appropriate; there's no promotional content (unless you count the reference to Jonny's "large and swollen jonny"...)
Thanks for reading, Yunshui!